Secondary menu

Tertiary Menu

This is the end of the innocence

A blog (from "web blog") is a discussion or informational site consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed newest first. All Corrente posts are front-paged; there is no up-rate or down-rate process. Corrente posts are almost entirely community moderated. We encourage a clash of ideas, and do not encourage a clash of persons.

If you are the author of this post, see the Edit tab ad Help (and Advanced Help) for detailed documentation.

CDS, the derangement syndrome that fuels psychotic hatred of all things Clinton, has verifiably (re)infected our entire media apparatus and much of the Democratic Party.

If it's not Day of the Dead, it's certainly Time of the Truthy.

Remember the helpless dread you felt when the GOP willfully drove us off the rails of reality?

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

I guess they really are the party of ideas. Though the Republican brand is in the toilet, their contempt for reality is vividly viral.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

When the very underpinnings of reality are yanked out from under us, we're in Rod Serling territory. Kafka territory. McCarthy territory.

A candidate mentions that her husband's first presidential campaign was still contested into June, and so was Robert Kennedy's historic and fateful run. A statement that is harmless, relevant, and true. Three words that apparently hold no appeal for many folks these days.

The ensuing response would make you think she'd gotten hold of Sirhan Sirhan's gun and was now pointing it at her Democratic rival. Whhhhaaaattt the fuuuuccckkk!?

It seems like the media is setting this up to be the episode which will force her out of the race.

But the Dean Scream worked, because a large portion of the electorate really had no clue as to who Dean was. He was still relatively unknown outside his dedicated band of supporters.

With Clinton the media dynamic is different. Number one, she's well known, and while a deranged few will believe that's what she meant, most will understand, having seen the previous treatment of Clinton by the media, that their CDS has taken hold again. And two, the media derangement works in her favor. She defies the media, and so do the voters. The more the media attacks, the more people support her.

They were at Code Blue but they had to skip Code Yellow and go straight for read(just like the other colors used to coincide with another politicians political fortunes.

I think the message of PA, WV, and KY is that now they do not. Also, in 2004, Dean had just lost. The whole point of the latest round of lekkage is that Hillary has not lost. I think people get this. And before we start throwing "rubes" around, remember that Bill Clinton's numbers were never higher than when the same assholes in the press were yammering at him. People get it, given time. And in this primary, people have had more than enough time.

And it's hard to think of a better way to push the SDs to stay neutral or move to Hillary than being hounded by the OFB that Avarosis is sicc-ing on them. Let them get a taste of what we've been dealing with since IA. All things work together for good!

You can't make what Hillary said sound wacky -- it just sounds like any sentence. She doesn't even mention Obama's name.

And here's an added bonus comment (copied from a comment I made at TalkLeft) In response to someone wondering about the significance of the primaries she mentioned (WHY or WHY didn't she mention Teddy's campaign?)

It wasn't 2 random presidential campaigns

She mentioned the June Primaries of her husbands first presidential election AND the first election in which she could vote -- the 1968 election was burned into the brains of everyone who lived through it.

But if you were a 21 year old that year (as Hillary was) it would have been especially significant.

For the media--on a global level*--to say she justified her staying in the race because Obama could be assassinated distorts not only her comments but also history: she compared herself to RFK because he continued the campaign in June and was a longshot. Obama, obviously, is the damn forerunner in this analogy, the Hubert Humphrey.

*I scanned various European papers and just about all have the following slanderous headline: "Clinton cites assassination as reason to stay in race." During the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, I could count on these papers for actual journalism but not today. I fear it's because of misogyny. Clinton is running to be the most powerful person in the world, not merely president of some random country so obviously there's going to be tremendous backlash.

as frenchdoc points out. this campaign has been the consistent, dedicated character assassination of a lifelong Democrat, someone who has given much to the country from her youth, who has won the world's respect as first lady, who has proven herself a vote getter and successful Senator (unlike my Senator Barry who has done NOTHING for Illinois that I can see, touch or taste).

This character assassination is by Democrats. It is appalling and horrific. And it deserves, when this is all over, it deserves retribution. I am sickened that supposed Democrats in the pursuit of their own power have made it their mission to lay waste the record of the 1990s and that so many Democratic politicians (the useful idiots like cardoza, mccaskill, et al) have gone along with it.

Money talks I guess. And the rest is just b.s.

PS: someone asked me why Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barry if Hillary was such a good liberal DEmocrat. And I had no response. I mean, sure they said all the fluffy things.. but really, deep down, WHY?

The Republicans are going to have a fucking field day with this stuff. It hasn't escaped their notice that the party has been silent on the misogyny, and it has not escaped their notice that Donna Brazile, et al. have their thumb on the scale for Obama.

It has also not escaped their notice that there are a hell of a lot of disaffected voters who feel personally slighted by the party and by Obama's campaign/supporters.

The GOP sucks mightily at governing, but they know how to campaign. And they know that you do not, EVER, insult the voters.

Remember Grover Norquist's ambition: reduce government to a size you can drown in the bathtub?

Remember who owns the MCM?

Remember who fills the campaign coffers and, by extension holds the lease on our politicians?

The politician who is being raked over the coals is the one with a record of fighting for the rights of all Americans: children, Latinos, African Americans, LGBTs, elderly, you name it. If a constituency has a problem, Hillary sees government as a positive force for correcting it.

Let me repeat : HILLARY SEES GOVERNMENT AS A POSITIVE FORCE FOR IMPROVING THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS!

I'm beginning to believe the misogyny, the reverse racism, and the CDS are all diversions. The forces aligned against Senator Clinton are the forces for which real democracy is an inconvenience, at least, and a boat anchor on the unfettered power of capital, at most.

There is no fear that Obama (anymore than George Bush) will speak truth to power. That's what makes him such an attractive candidate for the powers that be. So attractive, in fact, that I won't be surprised if the media turns its back on McCain and keeps up the Obama lovefest through the General.

McCain either--i believe all big money interests, Congress, and almost all DC Dems would be happy with either Obama or McCain--it's Edwards who was a threat before, and Hillary who is one now.

And it's now set up for an entirely issue-free campaign--no pesky economic or social problems at all--and neither has run on using the government as an active and practical force to help regular people---they've run away from all of that.

Summer is here so PLEASE help lambert...

... who still needs buy seeds and soil, especially since "Winter is coming," and pay the bills so he can feed the hamsters that power the wheels that turn the servers at The Mighty Corrente Building. Please, won't you help keep the hamsters shiny and well-fed?

No PayPal Account required! Give the hamsters immediate relief!

Or Subscribe to make a monthly payment!

Corrente is completely supported by contributions from readers (and, to be fair, a tiny smidge of Powell's commissions). We do not take advertising, so we can say whatever the Fuck we want. Thank you!

Citibank Plutonomy files

"What could go wrong?
Beyond war, inflation, the end of the technology/productivity wave, and financial collapse, we think the most potent and short-term threat would be societies demanding a more ‘equitable’ share of wealth."

Corrente Fellows (emeritus)

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment (snort) advice, or legal advice, or medical advice, or any kind of advice. BANKSTER WEASEL PROPHYLACTIC: The word "alleged" is deemed to occur before the word "fraud." Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.